Origins of the SES schools abuse ?

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Origins of the SES schools abuse ?

Postby ross nolan » Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:44 am

The following will be a start to unravelling the basic pretexts and subtexts behind the SES particularly in so far as they might determine the running of it's juniour schools and provide some clues as to the excessive discipline and physical punishment that seems to have permeated them.

It is hoped that a different line of investigation and research might turn up evidence to 'explain' the behaviour of the teachers and the schools' ethos in general that allowed the growth of what is now seen as pathological and extreme conduct.

It is taken as fact that such conduct did occurr and certainly much more frequently and severely than even admitted by the Townend report so that the fact of 'over discipline' as testified to on this forum is used as a starting point -- the question to be posed is WHY did this occurr ?

Some hypothesis' to explain it might be ;-

1. Psychopathic teachers

2. Unusually 'bad' students.

3. An outcome of Policy of the school.

4. Other.

Let us examine each in turn as possible explanations (keeping in mind the interaction of more than one factor as likely )


1. Psychopathic teachers .

This is probably the factor most students at the time would identify to explain the sadistic,voyeruistic, brutal and innappropriate behaviour of their teachers and abusers.

As students they are fully occupied with studying,growing up and trying to avoid punishment to be able to research or ponder upon the reasons for what is unjust and unfair blighting of their daily existence -- much of the fear and loathing that was engendered is conveyed by personal anecdote and testimony . It is concluded that psychopathic behaviour did occurr on numerous occasions frequently featuring 'canings on the bottom' and humiliatings in front of other students ,berating for the most minor infractions of rigid rules for conduct and intolerance of any perceived shortcoming in manners or 'etiquette'.

Taking psychopathic behaviour as established and frequent and characterized by much of the behaviour as above (bottom canings etc etc ) what can explain this fact ?

A. Did the school select persons with these traits as teachers ? (if so was this deliberate or inadvertent )

B. Did psychopathic traits develop over time as a result of the 'cultural' environment of the school? (that is, was such conduct permitted ?)

C. Did the school governers or controllers (SES) have no knowledge of the severity and extent of abuse ? (that is, did individual psychopathic behaviour by teachers go unnoticed ? Did any earlier enquiries into abuse conclude that no excessive or unusual punishment or discipline had occurred?)

D. Did the school actively encourage apparent psychopathic conduct and both approve and be aware of it's occurrence? (ie this behaviour was no mistake or covertly carried out or disproven but known of and condoned by the school )

Starting with A. It is likely that psychopathic personality was selected for by using SES members to start the school(s) -- this was deliberate and also ensured that the teachers would know the "big picture" with the SES and it's ulimate aims and be fully conversant with the philosophies and doctrines that it sought to promote and to further via the junior schools (ie indoctrination from childhood rather than conversion to the SES cult later in life.) It may therefore be taken that the SES teachers knew then all the background relating to the "approved method" for the upbringing of children espoused by the SES's honoured panopoly of ancient and medieval philosopher- masters (most significantly perhaps with the schools being Erasmus of Rotterdam of which more later ) and undertook to apply those teachings.

"B". No doubt the exercise of untrammelled power over children would have reinforced psycopathic tendencies, encouraged the excesses and possibly caused those unwilling to participate to resign -- only in rare cases would initially dilligent teachers become sadistic except perhaps if they too fell under the mind control and influence of the SES.

"C". It can be dismissed as infeasible that the SES and govenors could not have known about the physically abusive disciplinary practices given the scale and severity of the problem disclosed and the close interest taken by the SES founder -- it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE that the discipline regime was NOT approved by the SES let alone not known of or condemned -- it had to be consciously approved and fostered. Any prior complaints would have been deliberately denied and concealed .

"D". This resolves to be the only tenable hypothesis -- basically that psychopathic disciplinary behaviour was known of by the SES and actively encouraged as a participant. The question of WHAT teachings of the SES could have inspired and justified such a campaign of brutal pschological and physical discipline and punishment ?

2. Unusually bad students -- probably the SES "explanation" after both initially denying any abuse then effectively 'cutting loose' those teachers employed to impose their strict disciplinairinism (ie sheeting home the blame to individual teachers following the Townend enquiry for the purpose of public relations but really knowing to have supported and allowed it all) -- the SES would like to impose a 'zero tolerance' attitude to it's pupils and get the sort of automatic compliance that years of brainwashing has acheived from it's adult members. "Bad" in this context would mean any degree of non compliance rather than the sort of reform school situation with hardened young criminals, miscreants etc which might require some degree of physical force.

We now come to 3. "An outcome of policy of the school"

This next installment.
Skeptic

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:25 am

Sorry to interrupt Ross but here is my theory, short and sweet.

Step 1. MacLaren brutalised by his education/distant pappy/clinging mammy or whatever

Step 2. Retreats into intellectualism to avoid the pain

Step 3. Rationalises that this must be a good thing and sets out to free other people from the 'bother' of feelings.

Step 4. Discovers and misunderstands Advaita (probably lost something in the translation) and adopts it

Step 5. No children of his own to practice on due to his misogyny/poor hygiene(?). Too bad he also doesn't much care for children that do not do exactly as he expects/desires.

Step 6. Finds like minded intellectuals and sets up a school or two. Any reports of brutality are brushed away on some intellectual pretext that innaproriately uses the translations of His Holiness - thereby making him feel all righteous and superior.

Step 7. Ensures teaching staff are kept 'on message' by having them meet at Waterperry for teachers groups, supervised by him personally.

Step 8. Spends too much time being revered like a god, never challenged, his word obeyed like law, doesn't make an effort to get out much, distrusts the world in fact, seeks to create his own 'safe' world where he is king - ie psychosis

Step 9. Psychotic nature of head of school taken as wisdom

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

lost post

Postby ross nolan » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:38 am

I just lost four hours of typing on this topic-- Christ knows where it all went but there it is ( I was laid up with a severley bruised leg from a dirt bike accident yesterday and took the opportunity to hit the web)

I will put up a very much abbreviated form of what I had done but right now I am pissed off . If anyone is interested you might check out a couple of websites that give some clues - www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/soph ... rasmus.htm
gives some 'wisdom' and advice on schooling boys from Erasmus of Amsterdam who appears to be the 'core' inspiration for the St James schools methods (lots of advice for "whipping masters") and his "civility for boys' is a classic and clearly underlies the St James approach .

Maybe I can yet retrieve the original text from somewhere in the bowels of my computer .

Not happy, Ross.
Skeptic

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:03 pm

Ross, and anyone else, I keep saying this because I too have losts hours of work one way or the other; write long posts in notepad or any other wordprocessor and save your work every 10 minutes. Then when you are done copy and paste it into the message board.

It can happen that the server is extremely busy and overloaded, or your own connection has a hickup of a nano-second and gone is your work. So please people, use the save button in abundance.

Mike
Mike Gormez

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

lost emails and complicit councils

Postby ross nolan » Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:59 am

Hi Mike and all, good advice as usual -- I traced it down to my "default limit" (5 hours) which automatically turns everything off (!) -- on dial up , I am not so deft at computer use so I do cut the postings into smaller bites (but not small enough )

Incidentally tonight is the local council meeting and I will be attending and presenting several of the 'recalcitrant' councillors with the 'hard evidence' of the Townend enquiry that the SES does indeed have a "dark side" (you might remember they are put up in the ratepayer funded community centre but without any form of lease or documented payments etc as disclosed by a freedom of information request )

We will see if this has any effect to get them out (several councillors are new since the recent election and this is the first meeting )

Wish me luck.

Ross.
Skeptic

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:02 pm

Good luck Ross,

Get those freeloading SoB's outa there!!

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Progress report

Postby ross nolan » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:26 pm

Thanks Krusty (er I mean Keir ) -- council meeting was over in 20 minutes after which most scurried into 'private chambers' but I did manage to wave "secret cult" in front of two of the new councillors and they are 'concerned' - it's a start . The local paper reporter was there being 'groomed' by several of the old councillors and obviously shepherded away from me but I managed to get her to take down this web address and made her aware of the Townend enquiry having been completed . About time for an open letter to council and possibly a 'demo' outside the lavish community centre/brain washing facility -- will see if they try to have me arrested or whatever (planning to hand out some 'de programming literature'.

Thanks again I'll get the rest of this post up ASAP.

Ross.
Skeptic

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

PPS

Postby ross nolan » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:49 pm

PPS Keir -- re your response to part one of my missive on the reasons for SES schools being run by psychos and following the dictates of a 16th century disciplinarian ; you may well be right about Mc Laren and his unfortunate upbringing , one comment I would like to pursue though on a serious note ,namely '...misunderstood Advaita..." my question is does anyone actually understand it ? Can it be summarized in a couple of concise paragraphs ? (or failing that say half a page ..) If everything is an illusion and everything is one is one an illusion or what ? Does any of it actually mean anything ?

I remember a Frank and Earnest comic strip where Frank had just scaled a mountain to find a Guru sitting on top and asked the "ultimate question" .. "Is everything an illusion" to which the Guru replied "No , it just seems that way "...

As to translation , why cannot somebody substitute normal English equivalents for all those incomprehensible Indian megasyllabillic monstrosities? Why does every Indian have a name at least twenty letters long (or else very short like Rao but nothing in between ?)

Do you see real value in studying the Vedic texts ? ( I'm hoping that someone who adopts the cynical, worldwise,hardbitten Krusty as his role model will be able to cut to the chase on these sort of esoteric queries )

Awaiting enlightenment.
Skeptic

Justice
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:13 pm

Origins of the SES schools abuse?

Postby Justice » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:06 pm

Dear Ross,

Re your posting on SES teachings:

"...does anyone actually understand it?"

" ...Does any of it actually mean anything?"

I think Steven Hassan, "America's Leading Cult Counsellor" may have the answer.

To quote from his book:
'Combatting Cult Mind Control'
'The No.1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults'

Chapter 4 - Understanding Mind Control;

"The cult's cliches, or loaded language, also put up an invisible wall between believers and outsiders. The language helps to make members feel special and seperates them from the general public. It also serves to confuse newcomers, who want to understand what members are talking about, and think they merely have to study hard to "understand" the truth. In reality, by incorporating the loaded language they learn how not to think. They learn that understanding means believing."

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Re Advaita

Postby Keir » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:55 pm

Hi Ross,

Maybe having gone through the whole SES & St J experience turned me off study of advaita, given that as a small child I didn't always see the difference between the philosophy school and everything to do with it and emotional illness, misogyny, and arrogance.

I have persued my own path on the search for wisdom/truth/happiness and have sometimes come accross shared ideas from what was read out, but as to whether that was advaita, translation, Maclaren's impressions on advaita, or well-read tutor trying to explain something I cannot tell. What I can most definately tell is the vastly different method of delivery. At the SES it was 'this is the truth because I say it is', at other organisations it is 'This is my experience' and 'You may find this useful'.

I cannot believe for a minute that any wise man, from ancient times or modern, wouldn't think that there was something fundamentally problematic with the organisation of SES/SoES as witnessed in the testimonies on this BB, whichever philosophy it chose to adopt.

ses-surviver
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:11 pm
Location: London

Re: Re Advaita

Postby ses-surviver » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:32 pm

Keir wrote:I have persued my own path on the search for wisdom/truth/happiness and have sometimes come accross shared ideas from what was read out, but as to whether that was advaita, translation, Maclaren's impressions on advaita, or well-read tutor trying to explain something I cannot tell. What I can most definately tell is the vastly different method of delivery. At the SES it was 'this is the truth because I say it is', at other organisations it is 'This is my experience' and 'You may find this useful'.


I'm not sure that I'd agree totally with the last sentence. Certainly in the early years, things are put out via the 'material', which the students are then asked to put to the test and experience for themselves. Later on the emphasis does change, but I never felt compelled to beleive in any particular thing. Lots of stuff came up in material which I was never able to experience for myself and sometimes whole terms would pass by without me connecting with the material for more than a couple of sessions. But when a connection was made and something was experienced it did make it easier to take some of the other material on trust. A common mistake, I'm sure.

I'm sure that all those Saturdays spent at Stanhill, Waterperry etc were meant to be opportunities to put some of the material into practice 'under beneficial conditions' ... but so much of the time they just felt like chores.


quote error fixed - mike

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

More on Erasmus influence

Postby ross nolan » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:27 pm

OK here are some more links to the thoughts of Erasmus (AKA desideras Erasmus, Erasmus of Rotterdam etc ) -- you decide if this 'advice' is taken by the SES and applied in it's schools and teachings.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0046.php

www.gutenberg.org/etext./14031-12k.

www.humanities.ualberta.ca/emls/04-1/rev_lak3.html

www.schillerinstitute etc -- (Lyndon LaRouche - also favour Erasmus )

theage.com.au/news/opinions/in-search-of-civility/2006/01/31/1138590499517.html

http://oll.liberty.org/Texts/Erasmus 0096/Colloquies/0046_01-Bk.html#hd_If0461.head.167

one of these is positively enormous in size -- whatever else Erasmus had plenty of spare time and an abiding interest in other peoples's etiquette.

His thinking on education seems to vary from strict disciplinarian to enlightened . proclaims on most subjects dear to the SES.

Ross.
Skeptic


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest